LexCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus JAGAT RAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 533 : 2024 INSC 952 Central Bureau of Investigation v. Jagat Ram (Criminal Appeal No(s). 4964 of 2024) 03 December 2024 [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Manoj Misra, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Respondent was convicted u/ss.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the Trial Court. High Court acquitted the respondent holding that the findings of the Trial Court were based on evidence however, as regards the issue of sanction it found that though the sanction order was proved but the official who gave the sanction was not examined. Appeal by CBI. Whether the irregularity of the sanction order, if any, has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice. Headnotes† Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.19, 19(3)(a), (4) – Previous sanction necessary for prosecution – “Failure of Justice” – Respondent, if ought to be permitted to contest the issue of failure of justice due to irregularity in sanction before the High Court: Held: Yes – Under s.19(3)(a), no finding, sentence or order by a Special Judge shall be reversed by a court of appeal on the ground of absence, error, omission or irregularity in the sanction – However, such a restraint against reversal or alteration is subject to the opinion of the court that failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby – Further, s.19(4) provides that while construing whether the absence, error, omission or irregularity has occasioned or resulted in failure of justice, the court will examine the fact that whether an objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings – High Court held that the findings of fact of the Trial Court were based on evidence and the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance which the defence failed to rebut and thus, a presumption arose u/s.20 of the Act regarding acceptance of money – High Court took up the issue of sanction, rather than the proof of sanction on its own without * Author 534 [2024] 12 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports the assistance of the counsel for the respondent – Judgment of High Court set aside to the extent it set aside the sanction and the consequent acquittal – Matter remanded to High Court for considering the question of legality of the order of sanction u/s.19 to consider if the irregularity, if any, has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.465. [Paras 6, 14, 15] Words and Phrases – “Failure of Justice” – Discussed. Case Law Cited C.B.I v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal [2013] 14 SCR 983 : (2014) 14 SCC 295; State of Bihar v. Rajmangal Ram [2014] 4 SCR 602 : 2014 (11) SCC 388 – relied on. State of Goa v. Babu Thomas [2005] Supp. 3 SCR 712 : (2005) 8 SCC 130; State of M.P. v. Virender Kumar Tripathi [2009] 7 SCR 89 : (2009) 15 SCC 533; Ashok Tshering Bhutia v. State of Sikkim [2011] 3 SCR 242 : (2011) 4 SCC 402 – referred to. List of Acts Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. List of Keywords Sanction for prosecution; Irregularity in the sanction order; “Failure of Justice”; Irregularity if occasioned or resulted in failure of justice; Sanction order proved; Official not examined; Absence, error, omission, irregularity; Question of legality of the order of sanction; Restraint against reversal or alteration; Objection raised at an earlier stage; Findings of fact based on evidence; Prosecution proved the demand and acceptance; Defence failed to rebut; Acceptance of money; Presumption; Proof of sanction; Without the assistance of the counsel for the accused. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.4964 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 10.05.2017 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRAS No. 1192 of 2002 [2024] 12 S.C.R. 535 Central Bureau of Investigation v. Jagat Ram Appearances for Parties Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare, A.S.G., Ms. Rukmini Bobde, Ms. Prerna Kumari, Amish Agarwal, Arvind Kumar Sharma Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Chandra Prakash, Astha Singh, Padmesh Mishra, Nitesh Shrivastava, Advs. for the Appellant. Sangram S. Saron, Ms. Shubreet Kaur, Madhavrao B. Rajwade, Nikhil Jain, Ms. Divya Jain, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. 1. Delay Condoned. Leave granted. 2. The Central Bureau of Investigation is in appeal against the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.